Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

wylde007 wrote:I provided qualifications for my statements and then you proceeded to say that I did not, followed by response after response of attempted assassination of my character for not being verbose enough for your liking.

You keep attempting to impugn me for "downplaying" or "omitting" facets of long-range shooting, like I was deliberately discounting them or ignoring them altogether, drawing the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about because I did not present a masters dissertation on the subject when I offered my first response.

How about from now on you try not to assume you know what someone else does and does not know?

I should not have to defend an argument I never instigated nor intended to start and frankly, exists only in your head.

I didn't assume, you said you don't shoot long range early in the thread.

The central problem is this. The OP asked about finding a range, presumably to practice, learn and enjoy the challenge of actually shooting long range. You know, the things that make long range shooting hard, unique, and justify the very high costs? You suggest something which does none of that while discounting everything that does. You don't have to address everything, but at least address something relevant to the OP without misleading him to a solution which doesn't provide what he asked for.

You still have not provided anything as to why target scaling is a "key" to long range shooting. I addressed it because it is assumed to be the critical factor by many people who don't know what they are talking about. At first I addressed it nicely, but at this point you have firmly convinced me you don't know sh*t about long range shooting...and with that attitude you never will.

Why is target scaling key? I'm gobsmacked.

And I went into it in what I thought was sufficient detail:

Acquisition, time-to-target and the difference between shooting at a building-size target and a man-size target.

At shorter distances this is not perfect, but it's a workable facsimile if you DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS.

Just because I do not shoot at distance does not mean I do not know what is required to do it. I offered a solution, however undesirable or lacking. You offered none.

I mentioned every single specific challenge one might encounter in shooting at distance, including a handful which you neglected. Stop talking like you know what other people do or do not know and concentrate on your own issues, starting with your ego.

wylde007 wrote:Acquisition, time-to-target and the difference between shooting at a building-size target and a man-size target.

Acquisition: Except we generally put bigger scopes on long range guns. 1x for every 100 yards is a general rule of thumb as "ideal." There is such a thing as over-magnification as well as under, but ideally we just use the scope to provide a good sight picture. So nope, loose again.
Time-to-target: Now I know you don't know what you are talking about...again. How does shooting a 1/2 scale target change the TOF? Oh wait, you need range for that!

Building/Man: Yes, hitting a larger target is easier! A good hit on a building at any distance is easier than a good hit on a man sized target at any distance. Please state something besides the obvious. The larger the target the more room for error, but that is a linear function and is quickly dominated by the non-linear errors....which you don't seem to understand at all.

wylde007 wrote:At shorter distances this is not perfect, but it's a workable facsimile if you DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS.

For the last time, no it isn't. He does have other options and besides, that's for the OP to decide. Other people who have actually shot long range rifle have already agreed with me that you're full of BS on this.

wylde007 wrote:Just because I do not shoot at distance does not mean I do not know what is required to do it. I offered a solution, however undesirable or lacking. You offered none. I mentioned every single specific challenge one might encounter in shooting at distance, including a handful which you neglected.

You covered everything? Really...ya, again you don't know what you're talking about because even with the additional things your brought up you have barely scratched the surface.

Actually, I answered his question. I told him where there were ranges and also sent PMs letting him know where there were 50BMG ranges.

wylde007 wrote:Stop talking like you know what other people do or do not know and concentrate on your own issues, starting with your ego.

I know you don't know it because your answers are BS. PURE BS.

I can't remember, did we factor in barometric pressure, humidity and whether or not a yellow butterfly flapped it's wings on the other side of the globe?

Oh - and the price of copper scrap...

Don't forget about solar flares, dew point and the lunar cycles

SgtBill wrote:Nuff said Garret
Bill

In this case Bill, you are far wiser than I. Signing off.

Continuing to make s**t up about what I did or did not say and then vilifying me for it really is not much of a leg to stand on.

But, if it makes you feel good to talk down to people, even when those people know plenty-well what they're talking about and have proven it by their statements, well, whatever twirls your beanie.

Better than half of your gibberish is B.S. from my perspective. You started out patronizing and ended up downright abusive. Nice.

Palladin wrote:I can't remember, did we factor in barometric pressure, humidity and whether or not a yellow butterfly flapped it's wings on the other side of the globe?

Oh - and the price of copper scrap...

Poindexter er uh Gunderwood has stated previously that humidity isnt a factor...dont know about the butterfly...

zephyp wrote:

Palladin wrote:I can't remember, did we factor in barometric pressure, humidity and whether or not a yellow butterfly flapped it's wings on the other side of the globe?

Oh - and the price of copper scrap...

Poindexter er uh Gunderwood has stated previously that humidity isnt a factor...dont know about the butterfly...

I was done with this thread, but I needed to correct that. Humidity is a factor, but it just isn't as big a factor as most people think and it is contrary to how most people think it should work. Water vapor is less dense than regular air, thus higher humidity yields a less dense medium which results in hitting high (less drag = lower TOF = less drop). The impact is measurable at 1k, but usually there are far more important things to master first. I.e. why worry about a 1" of error with humidity when you can't call the wind well enough to avoid missing by feet?

Edit: Using the same setup at the previous example, I get 412.2" of drop with 0% humidity and 410.0" with 100%. Clearly it matters, but it isn't the end of the world if you just assume a fixed 50% or even just make a high, medium, low guess. Benchrest shooters don't mess with a lot of these types of variables because they get sight-in shots. Who cares why you hit 2.2" low, just correct it. Tactical shooters don't have that luxury.

Now Garret you must remember that there are those of us who can and have and those of us that can only talk a good game. Short range shooting on reduced targets suck's. I had to do it on a few ranges while I was shooting for the Goveners 20 in New Jersey and it proved to be totaly assinine. Any missalingment with the sight's no matter how slight could move the strike of the slug out 2 or more scoreing rings. If you concider the effect of proper sight alingment and stock weld and breath control, being off on any one of these is enough to move the strike of the projectile several inches out to almost infinety.
I do not believe that any type of reduced target should be used for training or any type of shooting at all.
Bill

The only reduced target I've ever played with was while cross training with mortars...that sucked big time and was also useless. Nothing like the real thing and not nearly as fun or rewarding...

@Garrett --- I distinctly remember stating in another discussion that humidity did matter and you debated the other way...anyways, just another reason to jerk yore chain...(*young whippersnapper*)...

zephyp wrote:The only reduced target I've ever played with was while cross training with mortars...that sucked big time and was also useless. Nothing like the real thing and not nearly as fun or rewarding...

@Garrett --- I distinctly remember stating in another discussion that humidity did matter and you debated the other way...anyways, just another reason to jerk yore chain...(*young whippersnapper*)...

Actually, I argued the exact same thing. It was this thread and I quote myself (emphasis added):

gunderwood wrote:Furthermore, humidity is the least important environmental variable. Using the JBM calc for a 175gr SMK@2650fps at 85F and 0% humidity I get: 38.2MOA of drop. Exact same settings and 100% humidity yields: 37.7MOA drop. Yes, water vapor is less dense than air so there is less drag and thus the bullet arrives quicker. Since the TOF is less, there is less drop at high humidity. However, even at 1000 yards, the difference is only 0.5 MOA for the maximum extremes.

Bryan Litz even notes in his applied ballistic book that humidity is the least important.

http://vagunforum.net/hunting-virginia/ ... ity#p54042

Quoting you - from that very same thread regarding...humidity...

by gunderwood » Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:22:35 -- "...Humidity isn't that useful. It does very little."

zephyp wrote:Quoting you - from that very same thread regarding...humidity...

by gunderwood » Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:22:35 -- "...Humidity isn't that useful. It does very little."

Does not matter and isn't a large contributor are two different things. If you read back I was responding to your OP in that thread which suggested humidity was a critical factor to get right. Consider that something like wind is significantly larger (MV variations matter much more than humidity at that range for drop). 10MPH of wind is worth 107.5", which means that 1MPH of wind is worth 10.75"...5x larger for only 1MPH error than the extremities of humidity. Only 2.2" between 0% and 100% out of 400"+ of drop is not a large contributor. It does do very little (~0.5% at the extremes which almost never happen in mother nature). That butterfly wing technically has in impact, but it is much less important than humidity.

"It does very little" is exactly what it does, but that doesn't mean it does nothing. Of all the variables you could ignore and still do a good job, humidity is it. Litz notes that in his book as well.

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:Quoting you - from that very same thread regarding...humidity...

by gunderwood » Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:22:35 -- "...Humidity isn't that useful. It does very little."

Does not matter and isn't a large contributor are two different things. If you read back I was responding to your OP in that thread which suggested humidity was a critical factor to get right. Consider that something like wind is significantly larger (MV variations matter much more than humidity at that range for drop). 10MPH of wind is worth 107.5", which means that 1MPH of wind is worth 10.75"...5x larger for only 1MPH error than the extremities of humidity. Only 2.2" between 0% and 100% out of 400"+ of drop is not a large contributor. It does do very little (~0.5% at the extremes which almost never happen in mother nature). That butterfly wing technically has in impact, but it is much less important than humidity.

"It does very little" is exactly what it does, but that doesn't mean it does nothing. Of all the variables you could ignore and still do a good job, humidity is it. Litz notes that in his book as well.

You miss my point entirely...its not about humidity...its about poking you with a stick...